AGENDA 21 RADIO

By Geoffrey Cantor

Xavier Becerra has already lost some big cases in his new role as California’s Attorney General, as he turns the resources of the state’s top justice office into a political machine for the Democratic Party.

Early this week, a Sacramento County Superior Court Judge determined that California’s attorney general wrote a misleading description of a ballot initiative to repeal the recently approved gas tax increase. Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that Becerra’s official ballot description would likely confuse voters because it focuses on the loss of transportation funding rather than the repeal of taxes.

“The problem with the Attorney General’s title and summary is that an ordinary, reasonable elector, who is otherwise unfamiliar with the initiative, would not be able to discern what the initiative would do,” Frawley wrote. Frawley will require lawyers from the Attorney General’s office to appear again on September 22 on the ballot title and summary, which appears on petition forms and the ballot, with revised language that is not misleading. Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen, a candidate for governor, is backing the repeal initiative and brought the lawsuit against Becerra’s ballot title. The description must be finalized before Allen and his allies can begin collecting signatures in an attempt to put the repeal bill on the November 2018 ballot. “This brings us one step closer to repealing Jerry Brown’s hugely unpopular gas tax,” Allen said in a statement to reporters.

Becerra’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Becerra’s ballot description hardly mentioned the initiative was intended to repeal the new gas tax, imposed in a highly partisan vote earlier this year by Democrats in the Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown. Instead, Becerra tried to cast the intention of the initiative as to “reduce transportation funding.” Why did Becerra prepare a misleading description of the ballot initiative? Political analysts said that Becerra was illegally attempting to influence voters to oppose the repeal of the Democratic-backed new tax, rather than just describe what the measure really stood for, which is the non-partisan

purpose for his office’s review of the ballot and title summary. Democratic lawmakers voted in April to boost gas taxes and vehicle fees to raise $5 billion a year for road repairs. Starting Nov. 1, gas taxes will rise by $0.12 per gallon and diesel taxes by $0.20, along with new auto registration fees.

The gas tax initiative is not the only case that Becerra has politicized and lost. Becerra lead the Attorneys General of 15 states and the District of Columbia, who filed their own briefs in opposition to the “travel ban” put in place by President Trump, intended to be a temporary pause in travel from states the Obama Administration had identified as terrorist prone, until immigration authorities could implement greater protections. Becerra greatly exaggerated the travel pause Order and said it “threatens to rip apart California families, risks their economic well-being and defies centuries of America tradition.” The legal opposition from Becerra, paid for by California taxpayers, is part of a plan to thwart the Trump Administration from achieving its campaign promises. According to Becerra, “a number of attorneys general have been in conversations, since before Trump even took office, about doing everything possible to protect the rights of people.” “In terms of the travel ban, it was a matter of trying to make sure we could make a good case that it was unconstitutional and it violated federal law.” Becerra’s big problem, however, is that the United States Supreme Court rejected his arguments and upheld the “travel ban” Order as constitutional, with few exceptions.

Losing on the gas tax repeal initiative and the Trump travel ban challenge are not expected to dissuade Becerra from continuing to divert and misuse the resources on his legal staff away from a focus on reducing crime in California, to instead advancing partisan progressive Democratic political objectives like keeping taxes high and opposing President Trump at all costs. Becerra recently announced he is going to sue the Trump Administration to halt building of further border control fencing in California, a case he will also surely lose in future, as federal sovereignty over border control is among the strongest constitutional powers that exist in Federal law. In the meantime, it is California taxpayers who will get stuck with the legal bills for all of Becerra’s losing cases.